Abstract. Aspects of Scientific Translation: English into Arabic Translation as a Case Study

Aspects of Scientific Translation: English into Arabic Translation as a Case Study

By Dr. Ali R. A. Al-Hassnawi
Ph.D. in Linguistics and Translation
Ibri College of Education
The Sultanate of Oman
[e-mail]

Abstract

It is unquestionable that English–Arabic scientific translation is increasingly becoming a topic of much concern and importance today. Oil on the Arab side and technology on the Western side contribute to this importance. This paper highlights the problems that are likely to be encountered in English–Arabic scientific translation and tries to establish certain possible factors which may finally lead to a theory of this sort of translation. It also identifies certain differences that exist between scientific texts and literary ones. The paper also proposes a model for English–Arabic scientific translation in further attempts driving at a more extensive study.

1. Introduction

As science and technology develop, new English words used to express new concepts, techniques and inventions come into existence. These words have developed more rapidly during the last decades that dictionaries can by no means trigger of. This development has brought to Arabic serious linguistic problems of expressing this ever–expanding wave of newly–founded concepts and techniques for which no equivalents in Arabic exist. But while coinage, borrowing, transliteration and other means of transfer made for a huge bulk of English scientific terminology, translating of full technical texts from English into Arabic still poses a major intellectual challenge (Nida,1964:223).

It is axiomatic that not all ideas or information are recorded in one single language. In pure science, for instance, 70% of the research indexed in 1970 in the Science Abstract were in English and 30% were in Russian and other languages. This statistical fact clearly stresses the paramount importance of scientific translation into Arabic. We also notice that the need for this type of translation into Arabic is getting increasingly important because many Arab countries are currently undergoing a large-scale modernization process.

It is interesting to note that Nida (ibid.) has, in his discourse on scientific translation, pointed to this challenge. He said:

If, however, the translation of scientific texts from one language to another participating in modern cultural development is not too difficult, it is not surprising that the converse is true- that translating scientific material from a modern Indo-European language into a language largely outside the reach of Western science is extremely difficult. This is one of the really pressing problems confronting linguists in Asia today.

Scientific translation, thus, becomes a prerequisite not only for the acquisition of technology, but to its introduction, installation, and operation as well.

2. Requirements of Scientific translator

According to London Institute of Linguistics, to be a scientific translator one should have:

1. broad knowledge of the subject-matter of the text to be translated;

2. a well-developed imagination that enables the translator to visualize the equipment or process being described;

3. intelligence, to be able to fill in the missing links in the original text;

4. a sense of discrimination, to be able to choose the most suitable equivalent term from the literature of the field or from dictionaries;

5. the ability to use one’s owns language with clarity, conciseness and precision; and

6. practical experience in translating from related fields. In short, to be technical translator one must be a scientist, or engineer, a linguist and a writer (cf. Gasagrade, 1954: 335-40; Giles, 1995; Latfipour, 1996).

Out of the six requirements listed above, the first deserves special consideration because it bears on the early attempts to found a theory of translation advocating that the text whether literary or scientific should be dealt with according to the way language is used in them (Adams, 1967: 87). This means that it is a theory which goes back to the old epistemological controversy over the objective and the subjective sides of reality, and which may imply, when extended to language varieties, a dichotomy between science and literature. According to Adams (ibid.) “it took more than a century to reorganize these two terms” properly as illustrated in the following columns:

Science	Literature
- Denotative adequacy.	- Unbridled connotation.
- Logical expository and/or argumentative progression.	- Lack of argumentative progression.
- Precision.	- Vagueness.
- Intellect.	- Imagination or intuition.
- Reason.	- Emotion.
- Truth to particular truth.	- Truth to the ideal and universal.

The points of contrast mentioned above side with Ilyas (1989: 109) who describes the nature of scientific texts as follows:

In scientific works, subject-matter takes priority over the style of the linguistic medium which aims at expressing facts, experiments, hypothesis, etc. The reader of such scientific works does not read it for any sensuous pleasure which a reader of literary work usually seeks, but he is after the information it contains. All that is required in fact is that of verbal accuracy and lucidity of expression. This is applicable to the translator’s language as well. Scientific words differ from ordinary and literary words since they do not accumulate emotional associations and implications. This explains why the translation of a scientific work is supposed to be more direct, freer from alternatives, and much less artistic than the other kinds of prose. The language of scientific and technical language is characterized by impersonal style, simpler syntax, use of acronyms, and clarity.

This distinction has one significant implication for the translator of scientific texts: he has to possess some knowledge of the subject-matter of the text he is working on, over the rest of the pre-requisites which he shares with translators of other text types.

Furthermore, this distinction is useful in so far as it is conjoined to possible leading factors for a theory of scientific translation because most of the literature on translation has given extensive consideration to literary texts ending with specific rules and theories and establishing relevant terminology of literary translation. The word deviation for instance, expresses one of the frequent concepts in the description of literary texts where deviation rarely occurs in scientific ones. By this we mean the deviation from the linguistic norms flourishing in poetry and prose, the quality which scientific texts often lack. However, certain rules which are applicable to theories of literary translation can be safely applied to scientific translation in general and to English-Arabic scientific translation in particular.

In this respect, we have to mention that Arabic, despite its adherence to prescriptive and conventional rules, can - in certain cases- provide for English word-for-word equivalence by different ways such as coinage, borrowing and transliteration by forcing into its paradigmatic moulds English words such as the substantive; so words like ‘ faylasuf ’ for philosopher; ‘ jiyulujiya ’ for geology; ‘ istatiki ’ for static……etc found their way uninterrupted into Arabic. Beeston (1970: 115) says to this effect:

The need for a large new vocabulary dealing with technological and scientific matters is, however, the least interesting feature of the new lexical development; more fascinating, though more elusive, is the evolution of new words for intellectual concepts.

However, a part from the cultural gap, the problem of scientific translation from English into Arabic remains mostly a matter of understanding and representing the techniques, the processes, and the details which science and technology involve. In this regard, Farghal and Shunnaq (1999:210) state that “the major problem facing translators at present is terminology standardization and dissemination in the sphere of science and technology”. “When it comes to Arabic”, they continue, “scientific discourse is a translation activity, as Arabic is usually a target language, and creation and reasoning are done in another language”.

The above-mentioned requirements for competence in scientific translation can be further expanded and detailed by the following model of the processes involved in this type of translation:

3. A Suggested Model for Scientific Translation

As far as English-Arabic scientific translation is concerned, the procedures mentioned in the suggested model (the model itself can be obtained from the Author – note by TranslationDirectory.com) can be used to analyze the code of English scientific texts. They mainly depend on the successful handling of the linguistic elements of both English and Arabic including grammar, lexicon, and field-related registers. They also harbor translating competence, which includes structurization, contextualization, mastery over programs of expression in both English and Arabic, and knowledge of the alternative standards of equivalence. Moreover, the model necessitates the ability to transfer linguistic and translating competencies to areas reserved for comparison and imagination. Subsequently, corresponding structural and lexical elements are identified and assigned functions in the sorting process within compensatory strategies resulting in an almost perfect mental representation which, when textualized and normalized, ends up in an accurately-translated Arabic product. We also have to emphasize that in scientific texts there will be no motive on the translator’s side to create additional impressionistic or aesthetic effects beyond that of simple information transmission.

The above description necessitates the identification of the characteristics of the scientific register on which this model operates. These characteristics are briefly discussed in the following section.

Дата добавления: 2015-07-10